With the growth of organizations and the increased use of information and communication technology, there have been several approaches to research and describe the optimal conditions and practices to create and exploit knowledge in organizations. Namely the two schools of organizational learning (or learning organization) on the one hand, and the field of knowledge management on the other. There is an enormous overlap between the two approaches and while there is merit in precise distinctions and definitions, for this study the understanding that all of them deal with the creation of a culture of knowledge seeking and sharing should suffice .

Out of the many variations of definitions of a learning organization Gavin's is adopted for the study, because it operationalizes the knowledge handling factor in a suitable way:

"[A learning organization is] skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights" (Garvin, 1993, p. 80).

Rather than indulging in demarcation, let's look at some of the findings and model propositions brought forward by scholars: Peter Senge (Flood, 1998; Senge, 1990) was one of the first to coin the term ‘learning organization' in his seminal work "The fifth discipline". He diagnosed it to depend on five conditions: systemic thinking - the ability to explore things as wholes (as we will see this is very much in tune with complexity science); his second proposition is to always strive for personal mastery - by that he means that all constituents of an organization are meant to develop and be conscious about their personal aims as well as about the shared vision (the fourth point) for the organization; thirdly he worked out the concept of ‘mental models' or routines and assumptions each of us carries around; (He proposed that these cultural dispositions are intentionally made aware and tested in order to optimize practices.) The last point is where we encounter the learning practice itself. Team learning intents to create optimal synergies for all participants through discussion and debate. The two concepts are similar and very different. ‘Discussion is where different views are presented and defended in search of a view to support decisions that must be made. Dialogue involves suspending one's own views, exploring issues from many points of view, and visiting the mental models and personal visions of others' (Flood, 1998, p. 266).

Nonaka (1995), in his ground-breaking work "The knowledge creating company", has described how Japanese firms create knowledge in the form of new innovative products. He builds on Polanyi's notion of ‘tacit knowledge' and develops a set of practices (the so called SECI approach - (Nonaka, 1988, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)) to transform tacit to explicit knowledge and vice-versa. Besides he conceptualizes three aspects, which are relevant for this study, as vital for effective knowledge creation: firstly it is Nonaka's understanding of knowledge that will be adopted for this research - "knowledge is unlike information; it is about beliefs and commitment. Knowledge is a function of a particular stance, perspective, or intention." He continues that "knowledge unlike information is about action, it is always knowledge ‘to some end'. And knowledge, like information, is about meaning. It is context specific and relational. ... While traditional epistemology emphasizes the absolute, static, and nonhuman nature of knowledge [as in science] typically expressed in propositions and formal logic, we consider knowledge as a dynamic human process of justifying personal believe toward the ‘truth'" (p.58); create a knowledge vision - which "gives corporation members a mental map of the world they live in and general directions regarding what kind of knowledge the ought to seek and create" (ibid 227); thirdly, I would like to highlight Nonaka's understanding of the organization of a Complex system in which all members have to become knowledge and innovation agents. He writes (p.50): "Furthermore, the organizational members must not be passive, but must rather be active agents of innovation" - ‘the organization re-creates itself by destroying the existing knowledge system and then innovating new ways of thinking and doing things' .

Both Senge and Nonaka were aware of the limitations of the Newtonian/Cartesian cosmology when it comes to the realm of knowledge and other complex social phenomena. Both therefore integrated aspects of complexity sciences (namely emergence and systemic thinking) in their work .

The result of organizational learning is an organization that is capable of adapting to the unstable environment (Schumpeter & Opie, 1934) through organizational transformation through innovation appropriation, or innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), as depicted in figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4 - Organisational Learning fosters Innovation

While many scholars have greatly contributed to our understanding of what conditions are favorable for knowledge work, there is almost no treatment of the question how opportunities are identified and how especially external knowledge and innovations are appropriated. Furthermore, as all these scholars were working about conditions of private companies, they subsequently used monetary performance as the main indicator for success. This research sets out to add to the understanding by looking at the conditions of how innovation opportunities are seized and in universities. This capability is named knowledge entrepreneurship (figure 1.5) and fills the gap between the learning organization and the appropriated innovation .

Figure 1.5 - The 'missing link' Knowledge Entrepreneurship

Steinberg (2005) rightly comments that at the heart of these economic rationalizations of human knowledge and behavior are models and theories, which reduce human action to utility equations. Economics sees itself as a ‘positive, value free science' (Landreth & Colander, 1989, p. 309). Accordingly human knowledge is subsumed to relate to one superior ‘objective' rational reality. In this conceptualization, all human thought is strictly logical and centered on the goal of utility maximization. This perception and its dominant application in business affairs might be one of the key factors that have led to the alienation of the individual, because all emotion and irrationality is cropped because the rationalist scientific paradigm can not account for it. Ciborra (2002) comments on this subject that these researchers ‘the world gets experienced as an object' (p.16) subsequently, ‘Geometry first uses ideal shapes as approximations of the vague shapes that exist in nature [...] next we grant such ideal entities essence and existence [...]eventually, ideal entities are substituted for reality, and the vague contours of the everyday reality and the human subjects who move around are dismissed or simply forgotten' (p.17). Ciborra further assesses that with the measuring methodologies employed by this scientific paradigm the key element is neglected: human existence (p.18). It is for this reason this study has chosen to implement a qualitative grounded theory approach employing a rhizomic complexity paradigm (as outlined in Annex C). With this approach I strive for a truly realistic (non-reductionist) perception of the natural conditions of knowledge entrepreneurship.

The following chapter will introduce the concept of knowledge entrepreneurship in more depth.

---------------------------

(i) Scholars have engaged in endless discussions about the differentiations between organizational learning, the learning organization and knowledge management. See e.g. Loermans (2002), or Kontoghiorghes (Kontoghiorghes, Awbre, & Feurig, 2005) for good differentiation and synthesis. The study will use the term learning organization to describe an organization which developed such a culture, however the other terms might also be used depending on the context.

(ii) Another school of researchers have investigated how organizations can reform and transform themselves. This school, known as change management, emerged during the 1950’s when more and more traditional companies realized that they had to make drastic re-arrangements in terms of technology and management practices if they were to compete in their markets. A very interesting body of knowledge, analyzing how change processes can be planned and conducted, has developed. However this schools is only of minor importance to this study, as it is mainly preoccupied with how to run a change project at one particular time – in contrast to how organizational change can become an integral part of an organizations design.

(iii) As this work also depends on concepts from the complexity sciences these scholars have been chosen as representatives of the field.

(iv) Intrapreneurship – (Pinchot, 1985) introduced the term intrapreneuring in his book Forms of Entrepreneurship. “From the standpoint of a company the benefits of having intrapreneur is obvious: Intrapreneurs introduce and produce new products, processes, and services, which in turn enable the company as a whole to grow and profit” (p. XV)

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment